Model Practices: Rolling Out Blended Learning

The importance of technology in our nation’s schools is expanding at an incredible rate. Most of the experiences students and teachers encounter is in a blended form of implementation. This approach to education can take a variety of forms: Rotation, Flex, Self-blend, and Enriched-Virtual model. While all face issues in terms of implementation, I argue that the most complex, and thus most difficult to implement, is the Flex Model. (NOTE: Definitions and usage of learning models in this blog comes from a white paper titled, "Classifying K-12 Blended Learning" by the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, formerly Innosight.)

What are the biggest issues facing schools looking to implement a blended learning approach? Even schools that have established models and proven success can struggle to a) sustain that success and b) transfer those practices to a larger network of schools. In my experience, successful implementation starts small and allows for the creation of a flexible blueprint. From there it can be integrated vertically (by grade level) or horizontally (among departments). The truly successful models can then by applied to scale. All, however, are still susceptible to the same issues: identifying proper learning technologies and making sure they address the key issues of the school, a professional development model that gives staff an understanding of how to use and implement said technologies, a shared mission and vision embedded in the leadership team and transmitted to all staff members, and the ability to balance current technological needs with existing practices. One issue that seems to be taken for granted, however, is an understanding by the teachers of the actual model in which they teach.

Model Blueprints

A glance into some of the most successful school networks that implement blended learning (e.g. Rocketship, IDEA, and KIPP) reveal a common feature: the Rotation Model. Two of the primary forms of Rotation Models include Individual and Station Rotation. Both apply similar principles: students move within a class or between classes and balance a traditional method of teaching with an online component (e.g. Achieve3000 software to address reading concerns). Many of the aforementioned schools that apply this model have successfully implemented it throughout their large networks across the country.

Why then is the Rotation method the selected model as opposed to other forms of blended learning? I would argue that, in terms of scalability, the rotation approach is straightforward and easy to understand. Perhaps one exception to this is a particular version of Rotation known as a Flipped Classroom. This approach has shown to be incredibly successful in some schools. However, this type of rotation requires an intensive workload for both students and teachers. In fact, the “flipped” class is already receiving some backlash concerning the theoretical approach to homework and balancing an active lifestyle for students. This is not to slight the success that this model can have, but rather to illuminate the potential issues when attempting to implement on a larger scale.

The Flex Model is another form of blended learning found in highly successful schools, but not necessarily within those experiencing rapid growth. Like the Flipped Classroom approach the Flex Model can, in some instances, require teachers to add to their workload by crafting their own curriculum. It can be argued, though, that more important than teacher workload is an understanding and an ability to implement the learning technologies in harmony with the blended model within the school. Whereas the Rotation Model offers a set path within and between courses; the Flex Model is much more complex.

By definition alone, the Flex Model can take on different forms. There are schools that apply a Flex approach to address achievement gaps in particular areas of academic focus. Others have implemented the approach on a departmental basis either taking the initiative or acting as the trailblazers to roll out the model on a larger scale. Schools like VOISE Academy who apply the Flex approach on a school-wide basis are much more rare. In this case, every department and each grade level implements the Flex Model. This means that every classroom in the school is balancing learning through a traditional approach mixed with online, student-centered curriculum. The variety of approaches creates a unique and flexible experience for the students. With that being said, unique and flexible aren’t necessarily the two adjectives you would want to describe a school model that you wish to replicate.

Another issue with replicating a Flex Model on a larger scale is an understanding of the balance between teacher and technology. Unfortunately, based on my own experiences and observing the practices of others, most new teachers enter the field with a traditional mindset. Especially in at-risk communities (where new models are needed most) the majority of teachers are looking for any job and not necessarily one that deals with technology or blended learning. While a successful professional development model can alleviate the pressure of learning how to teach within a new model and operate various types of learning technologies, new (and experienced) teachers often times revert back to trusted practices when problematic situations occur. Because the Flex Model is not always based on a blueprint and sometimes on teacher-by-teacher practices, there are few systems in place to ensure the approach undertaken is truly blended. The Flex Model can be a powerful blended learning model, but there needs to be a specific plan in place in order to ensure that technology is being used to achieve pedagogical goals rather than simply supplementing existing practices.

Teachers do not always revert back to traditional practices due to a lack of understanding alone. Perhaps the biggest reason why we have not seen the full implementation of Flex Models in larger networks of schools is because curriculum and content resources are not currently available. The importance placed on curriculum has been and will continue to be centered on mathematics and science. For some districts, it is more about ensuring that students can compete on a global scale, and for those in at-risk communities, it is often due to the four primary testing strands of mathematics, science, reading, and language arts. It should come as no surprise that learning technology companies have placed their research and development in these specific areas. Sadly, the “S” in STEM does not stand for social sciences. This is not an argument for the equal placement of the social sciences along with science and mathematics, but it does help to understand some of the difficulties in implementation. The same can be said of language arts, health, performing arts, and commonly found electives. A plethora of resources are available if the teacher knows how and where to look but not nearly at the same level as mathematics and science.

If You Build It They Will Come

If a Blended approach is the best way to address mathematics and science shouldn’t the same be applied to other content areas? Perhaps we’re on the cusp of further disrupting current disruption. With a wealth of resources already established for primary content the focus can soon shift to other areas of curriculum: social sciences, languages, and the arts. With resources more widely available, and affordable, the burden on the teachers to create content is lessened. This allows teachers to spend their time reviewing student achievement rather than creating ways to measure it; an aspect that has gone by the wayside as we move towards more individualized instruction but without adequate curriculum resources to accomplish it. An established curriculum source, full of both depth and rigor, can then lead to the creation of a blueprint that can be implemented on a larger scale. As it stands now, with the combination of expensive and sparse resources with the need for individualized instruction, the ability to take successful Flex Models and replicate them is extremely limited.

Perhaps the largest movement in education today is that of more personalized learning experiences. In the future, the best products will be those that can serve as a balance between providing curriculum and ensuring that students are active participants. The only hesitancy I see that could limit the expansion of curriculum sources is the theory applied to those in existence. Content providers have done an excellent job of just that—providing content. Most of the sources of content I have seen are far too rigid and reflect distance learning outside of the classroom instead of student-centered learning within it. Products that can demonstrate an understanding of the difference between providing content and fostering inspiration are the next crucial step towards furthering the expansion of more flexible models.

Face to Face Meeting - The Road (Blocks) Ahead

What do we do when our proposed solutions encounter blocks?

The first Action Research meeting with my target group was incredibly informative. In attendance were two new teachers (one was absent on vacation), a second-year mentor teacher, our expert teacher, and myself. After discussing the online-curriculum and taking care of a few logistical issues, I posed a simple question: What’s a big challenge you face? My concern over a hesitancy to engage in dialogue quickly evaporated. Each teacher was eager to share some of the difficulties they were facing. The openness with which they shared was incredible. It was clear that these teachers had found little time to engage with their colleagues prior in the year. My second year teacher, who has been terrific in helping organize the group, has already met with teachers before in order to give them a platform for discussion. For the other teachers, though, it was (quite possibly) the first chance they had at opening up with some of their problems, concerns, and ideas.

One statement was made early on that stuck with me: "We're facing a lot." I knew this would be the case for first year teachers, but it seemed evident within the entire group. While each teacher discussed a different problem they were facing (student behavior, expectations, and evaluations) they were all in agreement that these were shared problems. Another trend I noticed was that each teacher, and possibly other teachers within the school, felt a lack of empowerment to implement changes. This was surprising, as an open and collaborative staff was one thing the school had always cultivated. Now, though, each initiative they proposed to solve a problem was met with resistance.

My main talking point during the discussion focused on finding solutions. It's always easy to focus on the problem. Sometimes it's of great benefit to put our problems and concerns out there, but more is needed for real growth to occur. For teachers, road blocks will always be present: student issues, lack of parental support, and administrative requirements. The challenge is in using the resources we have to empower ourselves. With so much going on in the middle of the school year it can be difficult to find solutions. I hope that through discussing concerns and finding shared solutions, these social experiences will provide the platform for empowerment. Once teachers have the foundation and support they need, we can switch the discussion from concerns to that of improving practices. Our main goal is to empower our students. To do that we must first empower ourselves.

Possibility in a World of Measurement

Try describing the cycle of poverty to a group of middle class Hoosiers (those from Indiana) and you will be met with confused faces. I have seen that look countless times from friends, family members, and neighbors. The look, however, is not what frustrates me. For years I worked in an at-risk area of Chicago -- one of the worst in the city. Though my peers and I did well to create a school that improved upon the lives of hundreds of students I couldn’t stop myself from looking through a bigger lens. In the grand scheme of things the impact I made was relatively little. To me and my colleagues, each student that succeeded was a success story we were enormously proud of. To the greater community, however, the issues of urban plight still were all too prevalent. We created a ripple but it was one that paled in comparison to the negative currents of the neighborhood.

This was the view from which I approached action research. What can I do to change all that laid before me? Like I did so often in my history classroom I needed to zoom in to sharpen my focus.

A ripple on a pond seems to be the perfect analogy for starting on a focused area before expanding your reach. The inner circle, I realize, is myself. In order to expand at all I must first focus on improving upon my own craft. From the readings so far in Action Research this appears to be the central theme. For us to be successful in our Action Research we must consider measurable ideas.

Still wanting to live in a world of possibility my thoughts turn towards how I can build upon something measurable. Simply improving my own workplace would be a tremendous success. Just as I had as a teacher, though, I still want to expand the reach of my impact. Since my time and resources are limited I have to find a way to replicate my [potential] success. Schools are always looking for a way to bottle creativity, good teaching, and collaboration. I can’t possibly teach everyone to do that, but I might just be able to create the bottle.

Values

"In my younger and more vulnerable years..."

Before I had my first full-time teaching job I attended a job fair in Chicago. This happened to be where I met my future employer and mentor, but there was a short trial beforehand that I failed miserably. I came upon a table packed with applicants and the first thing one of the men in the suits told me was, "We don't hire new teachers." I wasn't going to get tossed aside so quickly so I persisted and he rattled off a few questions. I nailed a couple of them before he came to, "Social Justice. What is it?" I stood there for what seemed to be an eternity (maybe 5 seconds) and couldn't produce the answer. I thanked him for his time and went on my way.

Side note: The name of the school was Social Justice. Maybe I just should have said that.

It's a question that has stayed with me for over half a decade. Like so many others when I was younger I thought I could have an instant impact in the community in which I worked. Not to say that I haven't, but you become more realistic (no, not pessimistic!) as you see the factors going against you. What I always thought I was fighting for was equality. Upon reflection I realized that it was something much more than that. Providing equality would already keep in place an educational system that has created a huge divide between different groups of youth. What is needed is something beyond equality, and it clicked when I was reading McNiff's "You and Your Action Research Project."

In the basic checklist was a word that I seemed to ignore: justice. In order to adequately compensate for the divide that exists, we must not only provide equality but also an advanced path for that those who have been disenfranchised. I truly believe that my school, and others like it, represents that path. What is now needed is a collaborative effort on how we can turn a few successful examples into a systematic approach for change. Technology is at the core of this change but it should be noted that in isolation it is useless. How to use that technology to empower others is something that must be included. That question about Social Justice continues to impact my own practices and thinking. It's a shame it took me so long to figure out the answer.

Logic Model

The figure to the left is the proposed -- and working -- logic model for my Action Research focus. The four key areas are: Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes. Here is a brief description of each and how it applies to my project.

Inputs: What needs to be invested for successful implementation (Key input: time)

Outcomes: Impact as a result of successful implementation; has 3 stages: short, medium, and long (Key outcome: Short term success within workplace)

Force Field Analysis

To the left is the model based on Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis as it applies to my focus on Action Research. The primary arguments for implementation are the number of schools adopting new learning models (virtual and blended) as well as the number of teachers that will be required to staff these schools. On the opposite side of the argument is the typical resistance faced when attempting to implement a new policy or additional requirement for the workplace. Normally this would be of much greater importance, however, when dealing with the staff and administration at my school I feel confident that the established professional development model will lend itself favorably to the successful implementation of my Action Research focus. Personally, my biggest concern is creating an innovative approach to Professional Development; it seems quite redundant in the area of Action Research. I hold a similar viewpoint in regards to the professional development model in my workplace. Any time work is required of those without a vested interest in the Action Research (as part of mine is planned to be), the possibility of relying too heavily on others to fulfill the task required of them exists.

VOISE Academy High School - Rich Description

In 2008, I became one of the founding teachers at VOISE Academy. A new school as part of the Renaissance 2010 initiative in Chicago, VOISE implemented a blended learning model for grades 9-12. Blended learning or a “hybrid” model is the combination of technology-driven, online curriculum with a classroom teacher. Each student carries a laptop to and from their classes, which were heavily integrated with learning technology. Today, hundreds of schools operate within some type of blended learning environment. At the time, however, there were relatively few (6, as far as I can remember, that operated within a full-scale blended learning model). I was the head of the Social Studies department alongside seven other teachers – all of which were the department-heads as we were the only teachers! Being led by the administration, and with the help of the supportive staff, we ventured into uncharted territory in an area struggling to cope with the cycle of poverty and poor educational options.

Now in its sixth year of existence VOISE has achieved success in an area where it is not often found. All four grade levels are filled, which in many schools is an achievement of its own, and staffed by an energetic group of teachers. The administration, though small, is highly effective and hands on. With the help of the dean and the support staff the small school runs efficiently.

What allows VOISE to succeed where so many other schools failed is not simply a result of the new model or the technology used. The relationships that were developed between students and teachers are stronger than I have ever observed or experienced elsewhere. Much of this stems from the teacher assuming a different role. No longer lecturing or spending the entire class period instructing they are now free to work closely with students in small groups and individual settings. The technology allows this to happen but it takes a special group of people to follow through with what comes next.

Something I have always been proud of at VOISE is our model for professional development. A critical aspect of our school is the amount of technology we use in combination with a learning model that is unfamiliar to many incoming teachers. Failure to implement a successful model would result in an unsuccessful school. As a new teacher, the technology and chance to lead excited me. I took on every opportunity to help in the areas that I felt comfortable and each year the responsibilities grew along with the school. In large part due to the support of the administration, I was able to go from leading school-wide meetings, to district, regional, and national sessions on various aspects of blended learning. These opportunities are what ultimately led me to Pepperdine to continue my studies and find new ways to implement new models to areas in need.